Yes, it is similar, but not valid in this case. Causing the ball to go OOB is a violation, causing it to go into backcourt is not.

Again, it's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, you would have a violation just for throwing the ball into the backcourt, and we all know that isn't a violation. It IS a violation to cause the ball to be out of bounds.

I believe that is an exception and the ball does not have FC status when it is OOB for a throw in.

APG isn't talking about a throw-in. He's talking about the ball going into the backcourt after being in team control in the frontcourt.

That's why that NFHS ruling was horsesh!t.

I recognize that causing the ball to go into backcourt is not the violation. As discussed in previous threads, in the OP, if the ball had touched the floor in the backcourt, before A1 touched it, then the covering official would consider that
B1 had caused the ball to be in A's backcourt. And a subsequent touch by A1 would not result in a violation.
It seems to me that both the location status of A1 and the location status of the ball are taken into consideration in the Fed's interpretation. For example, if A1 jumps from A's frontcourt, and while in the air, over A's backcourt, were to touch the ball before it touches A's backcourt, there would be no violation if A1 batted or threw the ball back to A's frontcourt. This would be similar to a player leaping in the air to save a ball which is headed OOB.
I'm just trying to understand the interpretation by the Fed, and their apparent attempt to maintain - from their viewpoint - consistency in such situations.

Many here would discourage your efforts, on the grounds that the case play contradicts the rule.

Many of us regard the case play as founded on the flawed idea that one touch can be both the last touch in the frontcourt and the first touch in the backcourt.

The NFHS has basically said that it's possible to both be the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status and the first to touch AFTER it gained a backcourt status at the very same time. The NFHS probably implemented some quantum physics in coming up with that ruling. This interpretation also implies that it's a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status which is stupid as well because it isn't a violation.

Basically don't try and make sense of this.

By The Book ...
 

And how is a rookie official, with only the 2010-11 NFHS Rulebook and 2010-11 NFHS casebook, supposed to know this three year old interpretation?

Really?
 

Amazing how many times these back court situations come up on this forum. This is the 4th or 5th in the last month.

Umm...you asked a backcourt question not too long ago.

Yes i posted one. So what? I was merely commenting on how many backcourt situations come up on the forum. But i'm glad you remember what i post. Makes me feel special. ;)

I apologize. From the title of your last post, you made it seem like you were surprised at the number of backcourt violation questions and I was wondering why you state that when you asked one within the last week (which took about four clicks to find btw).

He's way ahead if he doesn't know it.

Probably because we tell him. Isn't that the object of this forum?

Board 666 ...
 

Just because every member of the Hell Association of Approved Basketball Officials (Board 666) reads this Forum doesn't mean that all the other officials in the world, or netherworld, read this Forum.